On 2013-04-10 19:06:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > (Wanders away wondering just how much the regression tests exercise > > holdable cursors.) > > And the answer is they're not testing this code path at all, because if > you do > DECLARE c CURSOR WITH HOLD FOR ... > FETCH ALL FROM c; > then the second query executes with a portal (and resource owner) > created to execute the FETCH command, not directly on the held portal. > > After a little bit of thought I'm not sure it's even possible to > reproduce this problem with libpq, because it doesn't expose any way to > issue a bare protocol Execute command against a pre-existing portal. > (I had thought psqlOBC went through libpq, but maybe it's playing some > games here.) > > Anyway, I'm thinking the appropriate fix might be like this > > - CurrentResourceOwner = portal->resowner; > + if (portal->resowner) > + CurrentResourceOwner = portal->resowner; > > in several places in pquery.c; that is, keep using > TopTransactionResourceOwner if the portal doesn't have its own. > > A more general but probably much more invasive solution would be to fake > up an intermediate portal when pulling data from a held portal, to > more closely approximate the explicit-FETCH case. We could also allocate a new resowner for the duration of that transaction. That would get reassigned to the transactions resowner in PreCommit_Portals (after a slight change there). That actually seems simple enough? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
